So what has happened after we beat Saints?

[Back of the Dolman]

1 minute ago, italian dave said:

Quite possibly not. Who knows? But I also think we'd have been much more likely to have won at least one of the last three if we'd had Twine and Sykes and Bell fit. 

You just replied to Lenred about coming up with what ifs and now you’re doing it.

At the end of the day all teams suffer injuries, referee decisions go for them and against them and has a bit of luck going for them and against them.

You have to take each match as it comes and deal with what happens in match in the day.

LM seems incapable of making any changes during a game that show any signs of changing the course of a match

[2015]

Manning didn't like us on the counter press vs Southampton (Which is what we're best at) so has now reigned us in and gona ultra 'boring ball'

[italian dave]

3 minutes ago, petehinton said:

Forest where we again created nothing, West Ham good against a side who didn’t want to be out there, Coventry good, Watford & Hull, really? Extremely average again. 
 

Those who says everything is rosy because we were excellent against Saints (which we were), must have their heads explode when they find out Nathan Jones’ Southampton beat Man City last season. 

Watford away - yes.

I'm not sure there's anyone saying that everything is rosy, Pete. On this thread at least, simply challenging the proposition that everything bad is down to Manning and everything rosy is down to something or someone else. 

[eardun]

2 minutes ago, Back of the Dolman said:

I think it’s clear to see that there’s no confidence out on the pitch even before the booing.

Yes it’s a concern. All of our defeats under a Manning have only been by 1 goal (apart from one - Preston which was 2-0). Imagine the meltdown on here if we completely lose confidence and get spanked by Mark Ashton. 

[Graham76]

I noticed in the press conference after we beat Southampton, Manning made a quip about Vyner needing to score more goals like Dickie.  It struck me as an odd thing to say, especially considering our strikers have been so bad. 
 

I might be reading too much into it, but if I was Vyner it would have p1ssed me off. 

Edited March 3 by Graham76

[italian dave]

4 minutes ago, Back of the Dolman said:

You just replied to Lenred about coming up with what ifs and now you’re doing it.

At the end of the day all teams suffer injuries, referee decisions go for them and against them and has a bit of luck going for them and against them.

You have to take each match as it comes and deal with what happens in match in the day.

LM seems incapable of making any changes during a game that show any signs of changing the course of a match

Of course I'm doing it!! I'm doing it precisely to make that point!!

Yes, every single thing you've said in this post you could say about the West Ham game. yet when it come to that game, the fact that we drew and then won is - according to you - all down to injuries and nothing to do with Manning.

Edited March 3 by italian dave

[Back of the Dolman]

1 minute ago, eardun said:

Yes it’s a concern. All of our defeats under a Manning have only been by 1 goal (apart from one - Preston which was 2-0). Imagine the meltdown on here if we completely lose confidence and get spanked by Mark Ashton. 

I think people will be less surprised getting beaten by Ipswich than the previous 1-0 defeats.

Yes they weren’t heavy defeats but you wouldn’t expect them to be when you’re playing some of the weakest sides in the division 

[headhunter]

1 hour ago, Sir Geoff said:

Southampton was a one off where the players raised themselves because they were on TV. Same as the cup games. The malaise has been going on since before Southampton.

Banker away upset Tuesday then. Main game on Sky isn't it?

[Back of the Dolman]

2 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Of course I'm doing it!! I'm doing it precisely to make that point!!

Yes, every single thing you've said in this post you could say about the West Ham game. yet when it come to that game, the fact that we drew and then won is - according to you - all down to injuries and nothing to do with Manning.

Well if you think it was down to Mannings coaching brilliance  that we beat West Ham then I’d suggest he starts showing that brilliance against the teams below us in this division!

[eardun]

5 minutes ago, Back of the Dolman said:

I think people will be less surprised getting beaten by Ipswich than the previous 1-0 defeats.

Yes they weren’t heavy defeats but you wouldn’t expect them to be when you’re playing some of the weakest sides in the division 

Southampton (away) Norwich and even Leeds were only defeats by the odd goal too of course. 

[Back of the Dolman]

4 minutes ago, Back of the Dolman said:

Well if you think it was down to Mannings coaching brilliance  that we beat West Ham then I’d suggest he starts showing that brilliance against the teams below us in this division!

And in relation to the draw at London Stadium I do think the injury after 15 minutes that saw Paqueta leave the pitch having already set up the West Ham goal did make a massive difference in us getting a draw that day.

[Back of the Dolman]

2 minutes ago, eardun said:

Southampton (away) Norwich and even Leeds were only defeats by the odd goal too of course. 

The defeat to Leeds was the most one sided 1-0 defeat I’ve ever seen !

They battered us and a 4 or 5 goal defeat wouldn’t have been unjust 

Edited March 3 by Back of the Dolman

[italian dave]

2 minutes ago, Back of the Dolman said:

Well if you think it was down to Mannings coaching brilliance  that we beat West Ham then I’d suggest he starts showing that brilliance against the teams below us in this division!

I don't think it was down to Manning's coaching brilliance. I think it was down to a combination of factors. His coaching, his management of players, some resolute defending, West Ham's depleted squad, a bit of luck with a poor back pass, and any number more things that would probably fill the page.

And that's true of pretty much every game we play - there's a combination of factors that determine the final outcome.

My view is that some of those - the good, the rosy, the less good, the bad - are down to Manning. And that some of them - good, rosy, not so good, bad - are down to other factors.

Your view seems to be that everything bad or not so good is down to Manning and that everything rosy is down to something or someone else. 

That's where we disagree. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

8 minutes ago, eardun said:

Southampton (away) Norwich and even Leeds were only defeats by the odd goal too of course. 

Norwich were not in a good place when we played them. Not at all- many of their fans wanted Wagner out. Check a few metrics ie their form from Game 5 to the game which saw them win at AG. Some of their away ones were awful as well.

To lose that, in the way that we did was a shocker.

Southampton Away yeah performance fine.

Leeds at Home, same result but performance and cohesion very much missing.

Norwich, post an early outperformance flurry

P14W4D1L9

Away Record

P7W1D1L5

Goals Conceded

29

Goals Conceded on the Road

19 in 7

Edited March 3 by Mr Popodopolous

[Numero Uno]

4 minutes ago, eardun said:

Southampton (away) Norwich and even Leeds were only defeats by the odd goal too of course. 

Leeds.

[Back of the Dolman]

4 minutes ago, italian dave said:

I don't think it was down to Manning's coaching brilliance. I think it was down to a combination of factors. His coaching, his management of players, some resolute defending, West Ham's depleted squad, a bit of luck with a poor back pass, and any number more things that would probably fill the page.

And that's true of pretty much every game we play - there's a combination of factors that determine the final outcome.

My view is that some of those - the good, the rosy, the less good, the bad - are down to Manning. And that some of them - good, rosy, not so good, bad - are down to other factors.

Your view seems to be that everything bad or not so good is down to Manning and that everything rosy is down to something or someone else. 

That's where we disagree. 

Don’t think I’ve made any reference to anything being rosy.

I’m solely judging LM on his time here, I’m not comparing him to any previous manager/s that we’ve had.

I’m judging it on him and him only and I can’t see any rosy points at the moment 

Edited March 3 by Back of the Dolman

[italian dave]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Norwich were not in a good place when we played them. Not at all- many of their fans wanted Wagner out. Check a few metrics ie their form from Game 5 to the game which saw them win at AG. Some of their away ones were awful as well.

To lose that, in the way that we did was a shocker.

Southampton Away yeah performance fine.

Leeds at Home, same result but performance and cohesion very much missing.

 

1 minute ago, Numero Uno said:

Leeds.

Leeds was poor, but I think we were just punch drunk.

It reminded me a bit of a game against Bournemouth a few years back when Bournemouth were in one of their Championship stints between the PL. And even their fans were saying that they played better that night against us than they'd done any time the previous season in the PL!!

Leeds were just outstanding that night. And, yes, still not sure how it ended only 0-1! I could suggest we did well to keep it down to that - but I won't push my luck 

[eardun]

7 minutes ago, Back of the Dolman said:

The defeat to Leeds was the most one sided 1-0 defeat I’ve ever seen !

They battered us and a 4 or 5 goal defeat wouldn’t have been unjust 

Yep. Did well to keep it to 1! My point is, if confidence becomes shot, we may start losing by more even if on TV - Ipswich and Leicester! 

[Back of the Dolman]

Just now, eardun said:

Yep. Did well to keep it to 1! My point is, if confidence becomes shot, we may start losing by more even if on TV - Ipswich and Leicester! 

Oh yes that’s certainly possible.

Sorry I thought the point you were making was that things weren’t all that bad because we were only losing 1-0

[italian dave]

5 minutes ago, Back of the Dolman said:

Don’t think I’ve made any reference to anything being rosy.

I’m solely judging LM on his time here, I’m not comparing him to any previous manager/s that we’ve had.

I’m judging it on him and him only and I can’t see any rosy points at the moment 

Rosy was a word used by another poster but as part of this discussion. It seemed like a good way of summing up some positives in one word.

So, going back to the OP - you don't think Southampton was rosy? You didn't enjoy that win, or think we played well?

And beating West Ham - you didn't think that was rosy?

[Back of the Dolman]

2 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Rosy was a word used by another poster but as part of this discussion. It seemed like a good way of summing up some positives in one word.

So, going back to the OP - you don't think Southampton was rosy? You didn't enjoy that win, or think we played well?

And beating West Ham - you didn't think that was rosy?

So as you confirm rosy wasn’t a word used by me.

of course I enjoyed the Southampton victory but did I think things were rosy ? No, we beat Southampton playing the style of football that suits this squad of players ! We went back to basics and what works for us. And if LM was more flexible in doing that then I don’t think people would have such a low opinion of him.

I have family ties to West Ham so I couldn’t lose whoever won that game but of course I celebrated our victory but I saw the bigger picture and didn’t get carried away by it

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, IAmNick said:

In the three games following Southampton, we made 584, 422, and 537 short passes. We had 0 chances in all 3 games from counter attacks (according to whoscored).

Against Southampton we made 277 short passes. We had 4 chances from counter attacks in that game alone.

What changed? Well we played football that suited us against Southampton, football the players knew and had been bought to play. Closer to Nige's football.

We went back to Manning's football after that.

Mods close the thread…this

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, italian dave said:

And Forest. And West Ham. And Coventry. And Watford. And Hull. And Boro at home. All blips?

They kinda prove @IAmNick’s post above.

Those games are proving that attacking threat based on pressing and counterattacking is more effective than attacking from progressive build-up.

Scoring against unstructured defences is easier than scoring against structured defences.

 

 

[Dr Balls]

The victory against Southampton was because it played to the strengths of the squad (I.e. quick transition / on the break) developed and honed by Pearson rather than the way Manning has consistently said he wants the team to play (I.e. dominate possession).

As well as a real risk of a relegation battle this season, what really worries me is that Manning will be given the nest egg this summer to blow on players for his system, whichever division we are in, when I have no confidence that he knows how to actually manage players properly, or has any other set of tactics than boring the opposition to death with our lateral and backwards passing, while creating zero scoring chances of note.

[Dan11]

1 hour ago, Spike said:

I think it's simple and I don't understand why people can't see what the issue is.

Southampton were full of confidence and came out playing a very open and aggressive set up, they didn't sit back in numbers, they didn't overload their wide positions when defending and simply put it suited us down to the ground as we got success in the areas we've been coached to play, down the sides and switching the play. Southampton didn't close down either of these areas which opened up the game and allowed us to play the style of football Manning likes us to play.

With QPR and Wednesday they both set up to nullify our space on the wings by doubling up and denying the inside passing lanes forcing us to keep going backwards and switch the side we attacked on. As we switched sides they would transition with the ball keeping their shape and denying us space to play our attacking football.

After watching those two games I thought to myself, that's our issue, we can't attack if we don't mix it up through the middle rather than the bring it back to the back line and switch sides until something opens up so I presumed that Manning would identify the issue and change our approach if Cardiff set up the same way. I was completely wrong, Cardiff set up the same way and we spent the entirety of the match trying the same thing over and over again until we got desperate in the last 10 minutes and started throwing ourselves forward which then changed how Cardiff had to defend and gave us more success in getting forward and applying pressure.

Yesterday summed up Mannings lack of ability to read the game for me, to play two full matches and struggle due to the way the opposition set up and then go into a third game and not have any kind of counter-plan for the same situation just screams inept. We had chances yesterday and when I watched the game and when I look back on them they're largely from loose ball situations turning into a fast direct line to goal which was what Pearson put into place, our best moments came from playing the football that Manning is trying to replace and for me that's the most frustrating part.

I'm oddly optimistic about the Ipswich game as I think they may actually look to bring the game to us which, in turn, would benefit us because then they wouldn't be set up to defend the wide positions and look to disposses us coming inside. It would also give us more space to work the ball in the manner that Manning sets us up to play. I do think we're going to find more luck against the better teams because they focus more on attacking than their defending whereas teams like QPR, Wednesday and Cardiff were all about defending in numbers, cutting off options and trying to pinch a goal on the counter.

The one thing I worry about more than anything right now is the players, there are signs that they are not enjoying the new system and I can see them losing faith in it quickly at this rate and Manning has already made it clear that he has no desire to change anything he does. 

You'll have to score at least twice to get a result against us. We give chances away at home but we are relentless going forwards and generally seem to find a way. McKenna and Manning obviously know each other pretty well so it'll be an interesting tactical battle. 

[Sheltons Army]

1 hour ago, italian dave said:

Of course I'm not. But you can come up with "what if"s  about every single game if you want to.

What if we'd been given that penalty shout yesterday, or not had the goal disallowed at the end. What if Wednesday had had the red card they should have early on, and if we'd been given the clear handball pen near the end. What if Twine hadn't got injured. What if Sykes had stayed fit. I could go on.

Pretty much every single game that gets played will have reasons someone can point to why something might have been different. And if you want to you can pick every single one that's a reason to slate Manning, and ignore every single one doesn't fit that agenda. 

Simple Fact Dave

we are 22nd out of 23 in the form table since Boxing Day

The only side worse

All but relegated Rotherham 

Time to wake up and open your eyes with due respect

 

[Slack Bladder]

For me, in recent games teams have sussed us out by half time. They have changed/tweaked things around and having taken the lead, sit deep with something to defend.

We on the otherhand have one game plan and one plan only. If it doesn't work Manning seems unable or reluctant to change things (formation wise) our one striker seems lost and isolated, we rarely make runs into the box, so the chances of winning a penalty are very slim.

So, what has gone wrong? I think it's down to our inability to adapt the 'system' when teams have nullified what little threat we possess.

[Dr Balls]

And here’s another team that are proving that just because Guardiola can make it work with the very best and most expensive players doesn’t mean that his acolytes can with lesser resources:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/mar/03/burnley-bournemouth-premier-league-match-report

[italian dave]

47 minutes ago, Sheltons Army said:

Simple Fact Dave

we are 22nd out of 23 in the form table since Boxing Day

The only side worse

All but relegated Rotherham 

Time to wake up and open your eyes with due respect

 

I think you may be missing the context in quoting me here SA.

I’m not for one minute suggesting that those are reasons for or excuses for those poor results. 

I was responding to posts that used West Ham’s injuries and some good fortune at Boro to argue that we didn’t deserve credit for those results.

If anything, I’m probably in alignment with you - those shouldn’t hide the problems - but equally you can’t have it both ways and dismiss our successes for the same reason. 

[italian dave]

1 hour ago, Back of the Dolman said:

So as you confirm rosy wasn’t a word used by me.

of course I enjoyed the Southampton victory but did I think things were rosy ? No, we beat Southampton playing the style of football that suits this squad of players ! We went back to basics and what works for us. And if LM was more flexible in doing that then I don’t think people would have such a low opinion of him.

I have family ties to West Ham so I couldn’t lose whoever won that game but of course I celebrated our victory but I saw the bigger picture and didn’t get carried away by it

I’m not aware I ever attributed the word ‘rosy’ to you. I didn’t realise I wasn’t allowed to use an adjective you’d not already used…sorry

I’m glad you enjoyed Southampton and can at least give LM some credit for using a style that day that suited the players!

Look: if you want to take the view that nothing Manning can do is right then that’s your prerogative. It’s your view and that’s fine with me.

I’m just saying I don’t agree. But maybe more to the point what I’m saying is that just because I don’t agree doesn’t mean that I take the polar opposite view and think that everything he does is right.

I don’t see the world in black and white like that. There are shades of grey for me.